goalstory_update_step

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The phrase 'track progress and insights' hints at usage but lacks operational details. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and fields, followed by a usage hint. It's efficient with zero wasted words, though the second sentence could be more specific. Every sentence earns its place, but it's slightly brief for a mutation tool without annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for an AI agent. With no output schema and zero annotation coverage, it should provide more context about what happens after invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'id' as unique identifier, 'status' with 0/1 values). The description lists the same fields (name, completion status, evidence, outcome) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('step details') with specific fields (name, completion status, evidence, outcome). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'goalstory_update_step_notes' by focusing on core step attributes rather than just notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'goalstory_update_goal' or 'goalstory_update_scheduled_story' at the resource level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage context with 'Use this to track progress and insights,' suggesting it's for updating step progress. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'goalstory_update_step_notes' or 'goalstory_set_steps_order,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.